All, Just because Wave would be potentially retired as an apache incubator project, does not mean that it is any more or less viable as an open source project. It just means that the project is not right for the apache software foundation. The code could be, will be, moved to a github repository or the like, where the community is more that welcome to continue any development they see fit.
The people who have been contributing can still contribute. The folks who have been using the code, can still use the code. ~Michael On 3/15/15, 7:22 AM, "Pablo Ojanguren" <[email protected]> wrote: >I've been interested on Wave since almost one year, first as Kune >contributor and lately in a separated project trying to reuse Wave >technology in general way. I agree, the issue is the lack of separation >between server and client and other components, the handicap to develop on >top of Wave unless you have a deep knowledge and its focus on a final >product (Conversations). > >I will keep working on Wave, because* it's the only federated alternative >for real-time collaboration* and it is a good technology. These are my >current projects extending Wave, of course, anyone is invited to >participate: > >*https://github.com/P2Pvalue/incubator-wave ><https://github.com/P2Pvalue/incubator-wave> *A JavaScript API to manage >general Wave content: maps, lists and strings (kind of Google Drive >Real-Time API). >*https://github.com/Zorbel/swell-android* ><https://github.com/Zorbel/swell-android> Experimental port of the Wave >Client (without IU) code to Android. The aim is to provide the previous API >in Android. > >I regret this situation. > >Thank you > > >2015-03-15 12:09 GMT+01:00 Francesco Rossi <[email protected]>: > >> Yuri suggested me in PVT some interesting open alternatives although I >> think they would still lack the options that Wave has. >> Just to name 2 of them: >> share.js >> rizzoma >> >> of course they have different functions, but at least they would share >> some Wave dna. >> the point is that coding on top of those solutions seemed a lot of work >> just to catch up with the features Wave has. >> >> but I'd be glad to be disputed at this point. >> >> Still, I'm a bit perplexed about the client/server conversation. I looked >> around and just for example, Splash is an old client but looked like it was >> quite split from the server architecture. >> What am I missing? >> >> >> >> >> On 3/15/2015 3:51 AM, Bruce Hellstrom wrote: >> >>> The problem is technology keeps marching on while the wave project has >>> remained mostly stagnant. I wanted to setup an internal wave server at our >>> company and try to get it adopted as the company standard for our >>> communications. I hate trying to manage email threads that get so long and >>> disjointed. Wave was such a good solution. I wanted to wait until the db >>> storage of waves support was put in, which is there now I believe. >>> >>> However, the company has started using Slack and I have to say it's hard >>> to argue against that with a beta of Wave in it's current state. Slack has >>> a lot of the features I was looking for in wave as well as clients that >>> work on almost all mobile devices now. The downside is, the data storage >>> resides with Slack and not on our own internal company servers, but that >>> doesn't seem to be an issue. >>> >>> I think Wave is still an awesome product that was ahead of it's time, but >>> now it would just take too much effort to bring it up-to-date. It needs to >>> support all the latest incarnations of the browsers, which is a moving >>> target now that almost all are on fast release cycles. It needs full >>> mobile support apps. I just don't think there's enough people who have >>> enough time to devote to all that needs to be done. >>> >>> On 03/15/2015 03:23 AM, Francesco Rossi wrote: >>> >>>> Guys, >>>> I'm a newbie too and we are thinking of building an entire app over wave. >>>> It sounds really bat that the community is willing to give up. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 3/15/2015 3:14 AM, ujadatron wrote: >>>> >>>>> It sounds bad. >>>>> >>>>> I'm a "few days newbee" in this mailing list. (I'm looking for a >>>>> flexible open source collaboration framework). >>>>> Do you suggest any of them? (if the Wave will retire) >>>>> >>>>> thanks in advance >>>>> adatron >>>>> >>>>> 2015.03.14. 22:28 keltezéssel, James Keener írta: >>>>> >>>>>> I was going to write almost exactly the same email and decided not to. >>>>>> I found wave and wanted to use it, but it's dependence on the GWT and >>>>>> how intertwined the Client and Server were made it very difficult for >>>>>> me >>>>>> to understand and I moved to share.js because I could more easily >>>>>> comprehend it's inner workings and could build my client around it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ideally two projects and a documented protocol would have been best. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Much >>>>>> >>>>>>> like how email severs and clients can be developed separately, and >>>>>>>> standards like pop3 and imap used to talk between them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> This would have been ideal I feel. I've seen multiple people on this >>>>>> mailing list asking how to integrate with the server and there is never >>>>>> a good response. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jim >>>>>> >>>>>> On 03/14/2015 05:18 PM, Thomas Wrobel wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I'll just sadly from my little lurker corner repeat what I have been >>>>>>> saying >>>>>>> for 3 years or so now; >>>>>>> I wanted to work on a client, despite trying, I lacked the ability to >>>>>>> understand the server side code. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There was never a clear separation of client and sever that I feel >>>>>>> would >>>>>>> have allowed less skilled coders like me to contribute. I was >>>>>>> frustrated >>>>>>> when I saw GWT/ GUI issues on the web client being posted at times to >>>>>>> fix...and I could have helped with that. But I couldn't, because the >>>>>>> bureaucracy of having the sever and client tied together made (for me) >>>>>>> trivial things rather hard. >>>>>>> My half-developed phone client remained dead since Googles time as >>>>>>> well >>>>>>> because I couldn't figure out how to interface with the changes made >>>>>>> to how >>>>>>> you should talk to the sever. I had at one point 3 people helping me >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> that project, and with a client/sever protocol we could have all >>>>>>> contributed. >>>>>>> Ideally two projects and a documented protocol would have been best. >>>>>>> Much >>>>>>> like how email severs and clients can be developed separately, and >>>>>>> standards like pop3 and imap used to talk between them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I fully acknowledge much of this is my own lack of skills, and with >>>>>>> everyone unpaid volunteers I cant expect anything. >>>>>>> But this is my hypothesis as to why Wave development wasn't as active >>>>>>> as it >>>>>>> could have been. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Thomas Wrobel >>>>>>> arwave.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ~~~ >>>>>>> Thomas & Bertines online review show: >>>>>>> http://randomreviewshow.com/index.html >>>>>>> Try it! You might even feel ambivalent about it :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 14 March 2015 at 21:52, Upayavira <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wave has been incubating for some years now, and, unfortunately, has >>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>> shown a level of growth that, in my opinion, would suggest that it is >>>>>>>> likely to reach graduation from the Incubator. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Unfortunately, I think it is time we accept that Wave is unlikely to >>>>>>>> reach graduation, and should retire. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To explain what this means - as I understand it, the ASF repo would >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> marked read-only, and after a period of time, the lists disabled. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The code would, however, remain open-source, and any person, or >>>>>>>> group of >>>>>>>> people would be free to fork the code and continue with it elsewhere, >>>>>>>> e.g. Github/Sourceforge/etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In the end, this is a decision of the Incubator PMC, however I’d >>>>>>>> like to >>>>>>>> see whether anyone here has any thoughts to add before I put this to >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> wider Incubator community. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Upayavira >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> P.S. This came up on the incubator-general list as a part of a >>>>>>>> discussion on the Wave report >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
